Why are Fairfax pimping for climate deniers?

By   /   January 16, 2018  /   100 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

What the hell do Fairfax think they are doing by allowing a climate denial pimp like Doug Edmeades a platform?

What the hell do Fairfax think they are doing by allowing a climate denial pimp like Doug Edmeades a platform?

The line up of cherry picked ‘fact’s Edmeades vomits up are all the usual bullshit and bluster climate deniers use.

He claims he is being skeptical because that’s good science when really this is just a collection of contrarian bullshit pretending to be facts.

Edmeades is an industry stooge whose job it is to sow scientific doubt about client change so the industry can get away with creating more pollution.

He claims the climate is always changing, which of course it is and if we were changing as we should based on the very rhythms of geological life he points to, the planet would be entering a cooling period.

It is not.

It is dangerously super heating.

Edmeades attempts to claim that the medieval warm period and the little ice age all mean the current warming us something else and not man made pollution. The simplicity of the stupidness from this arsehole is dangerous because it’s quack science and he’s trying to purposely confuse people away from what the science actually says, which is that dangerous climate change caused by human pollution is pushing the planet to v very brink of catastrophe.

Just because it got very cold and very hot before human pollution from the industrial age was being used doesn’t mean the pollution is causing enormous planet wide distress to the biosphere now.

Why are Fairfax giving this bullshit platform?

They already have  a track record of being the voice of climate deniers by giving Doug Edmeades a previous column where he attacked Mike Joy as a scientist.  

Imagine if Fairfax had been allowed to merge with the NZME how much more climate denial propaganda would have been produced?

Fiarfax’s climate denial must be challenged and attacked at every step.

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

100 Comments

  1. R.P. Mcmurphy says:

    quite simple bomber old chap. the motor trade buy all the advertising.

  2. Patrick says:

    Perhaps they believe in balance.
    The Press has many stories on the other side.
    Radio and print media reported that the roads in my coastal suburb were closed because of flooding in the king tides 10 days ago.
    My cousin from the Naki rang to see how we were coping
    The facts were different.
    There was no flooding.
    But the fact remains that radio and Press records ten years from now will “prove “that we were flooded on that day as there was no retraction.
    The climate is changing but where is the middle ground between the doomsayers and the middle ground?
    Long may the media present both sides of an argument where so much is about opposing computer models.
    Some say the sea will rise by 2m and some by a quarter of that over the next century, but sea level gauges around NZ are not showing the increases they should to herald the changes predicted over the next 20 years,
    This is a debate that should continue to be debated.

    • Historian Pete says:

      If there is balance in the topic of Global warming, it will be the only area in which there is balance! Having said that, the science is not proven.Continued debate is necessary.As Patrick reasonably points out, there is a wide discrepancy about the degree of climate change. I am particularly interested in the topic of sea level rises, and I have been following this topic minutely for the past 7 years. What is disturbing is the amount of false evidence that has been put forward by “scientists”, even at the United Nations level. Information from tide gauges have been altered to fit in with computer modelling. This does not prove the argument either way, but it does beg the question: If those who suggest a degree of sea level rising are confident in their findings , why do they have to falsify data !!!

      • Shona says:

        Gee Patrick tell that to the folks who run the Ahipara golf course who lost yet another hole from the course to the sea in this recent storm. Big difference between the West and East coasts in the North Island. I am sure the homeowners at Ahipara who lost more of their sections to the sea would like them back as well. The data ISN’T being collected in NZ. We cannot plan anything because we don’t have the data as we have business friendly governments with no cojones and no spine.My home town in the South Island is a desert compared to the lush green locale it was in my youth. All right on target for the IPCC modeling for the area. I cannot grow plants at my property I could grow easily 30 years ago because of the heat and extreme storms we now experience. I listen to local fishers and those who have lived up here in the Far North for 40 years or more for my info which correlates with my own observations. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

      • Afewknowthetruth says:

        The matter of sea level rise is a lot more complicated that the casual observer might imagine.

        The amount of water in the seas and oceans can actually decline as a consequence of climate change: large amounts of water released on land masses takes a while to return to the oceans. And large amounts of water released onto land masses is exactly what we have been witnessing as the oceans overheat and the atmosphere gets overloaded with water vapour.

        Short-term changes aside, on a longer time scale the oceans will continue to expand (warm water having a greater volume than cold water above the ‘peculiar’ threshold of 4oC). And the ice on land masses that is melting rapidly will add to the thermal expansion effect.

        Expect anything up to 20 metres of sea level rise this century, depending on the effect of positive feedback on the accelerating meltdown of the planet.

        Needless to say, officialdom continues to play down the whole matter and tries to convince us sea level rise will be only a matter of centimetres this century, despite all the evidence that will not be the case. It’s the psychology of previous investment and the need to maintain and protect Ponzi financial systems that keeps officialdom locked into delusional, unscientific (corrupt) thinking.

        • Historian Pete says:

          You will be excited to know therefore of a new study by Dr.Nils Axel Morner-August 2017 -“Sea Level Manipulation”-Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm,Sweden.”Tide gauges find no global acceleration in sea level-But satellite data “manipulated” to show acceleration.”-published in International Journal of Engineering Science Invention.
          Dr.Nils-Axel Morner is the former chair of the Paleogeophysics andGeodynamics Department at Stockholm University. He has been studying sea level and its effects on coastal areas for 35 years.He is the foremost authority on sea levels.
          His study concludes:Up to the present, there has been no convincing recording of any acceleration in sea level, rather the opposite: a total lack of any sign of an accelerating trend.
          The study also finds satellite sea level rise data”manipulated” to show acceleration”.They seem to over-estimate observed sea level changes [ observed off tidal gauges] by 100 to 400%.
          He states that it seems quite weird to claim that it is the satellite altimetry that is right, and that the true observations in the field[with the tidal gauges ] are wrong!The tide gauge data observations show global sea levels varying between 0.0 and +1.0m.mm and the satellite data claim there is a global mean of about 3.0 mm/year.
          With the tidal gauge data in the Maldives,Bangladesh, Qatar,,Tuvalu, Vanuatu,Kiribati, Fiji,Goa,French Guiana, Venice, and Northwestern Europe the sea level has remained virtually stable over the last 50 years.
          In essence there is not going to be coastal inundation by the sea,any more than the coastal erosion that has been happening for hundreds of years. The sea levels are not rising as certain scientists have informed us!To put it politely, you have been seriously misled!!!

          • Dr.Nils Axel Morner is a serial climate change denier, Pete. His views have been discredited. (https://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html) By promoting his views and suggesting that Afewknowthetruth has “been seriously misled” puts you firmly in the camp of other climate change deniers.

            Which is weird, considering this has been the warmest decade on record. Furthermore, according to the NOAA;

            This marks the fourth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, and 2014) and also marks the 39th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average. To date, including 2015, 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred during the 21st century. 1998 is currently tied with 2009 as the sixth warmest year on record.

            Overall, the global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.17°C (0.31°F) per decade since 1970.

            ref: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

            How, exactly, has “satellite data been manipulated”? That’s an easy claim to make – where is the evidence?

          • Furthermore, you can find evidence of sea level rises around New Zealand as this Statistics NZ report indicates:

            Our coastal sea level (relative to land) is rising.
            Available tide gauge data showed rising trends in all long-term monitored sites over approximately 100 years, between 1900 and 2013.
            The Wellington tide gauge showed the most marked trend: + 2.14 ± 0.16 mm/year. Other sites with less marked changes were:
            Auckland + 1.55 ± 0.08 mm/year
            Dunedin + 1.36 ± 0.08 mm/year
            Lyttelton + 1.98 ± 0.09 mm/year
            New Plymouth + 1.31 ± 0.28 mm/year.

            ref: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/environment/environmental-reporting-series/environmental-indicators/Home/Marine/coastal-sea-level-rise.aspx

            You can learn more about sea level rises here: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/marine-environmental-reporting/our-marine-environment-2016%20

            • Historian Pete says:

              With all due respect Frank,you are not the foremost authority on sea levels like Dr. Morner.He is an on the ground Sea level scientist who is intimately involved in taking the readings of tidal gauges all around the world.He is a field geologist, not a computer scientist like those who have come up with their computer models which predict a sea level rise from one to seven metres by the end of the century.He takes a world mean, not individual readings at places that of course can show a wide variation.When the IPCC came up with their sea level predictions he asked to see their raw data, which of course was from tidal gauges.He was confounded to discover that they had altered the data so that it indicated a higher sea level rising of 3 mm per annum. When He asked them why they had done this they replied that they had to ,otherwise the tide gauges would not agree with the Nasa figures and the computer modelling.
              The horrible fact is that observation [tidal gauges ]finds out a rate of increase that tops out at 1.1 mm a year. That is 110 mm in 100 years.11 centimetres! I suggest that those trout waders you bought so you could walk around in a metre of water should be put on Trademe before the bottom falls out of the market!
              On the one side we have Dr. Morner with his tidal gauges that don’t lie. And on the other we have the computer modellers whose results don’t come from observations! And of course we have NASA. The NASA that once upon a time could build a rocket that would reach the moon and successfully come back safely. With their new business model [the same as brought us the 2008 financial crisis]their rockets fall out of the sky with depressing regularity. To get their Astronauts to the International space Station they have to get a ride with the Russians! Nasa no longer has any credibility.!!!
              If the observations show 1.1 mm per annum [ would you like the tidal gauges to be given a lie detector test?] how can the satellite data not be manipulated?
              Finally, you can put me in any camp you want Frank. I follow the truth wherever it leads me. On the facts I have read , after studying sea level rises for 7 years, I find Dr .Warner more believeable than Nasa and the Computer scientists. Its like the” Emperors New clothes” scenario. You are a person who will believe the Emperor has a snazzy suit on to the bitter end. I see him buck naked. Only time will tell who is right. But the good thing is that observation with the naked eye in the future will expose a Great Hoax!

              • Samwise says:

                So now the satellites are lying, Pete? I see no evidence for you to support Morners views. He’s not a climate scientist as fa you’ve shown us.

                • Historian Pete says:

                  The satellites are not lying, their operators are! I have clearly stated Dr. Morners credentials. Can you not read plain English?

              • Priss says:

                “With all due respect Frank,you are not the foremost authority on sea levels like Dr. Morner”

                Neither are you, Pete! And with no due respect , neither is Dr Morner a climate scientist.

                You provide no citations for any of Morner’s so-called criticisms. Neither do you respond to clear evidence that sea levels ARE rising and the planet is heating up. You’re simply peddling Morner’s crackpot ideas without any inkling of what he’s based it on.

                • Historian Pete says:

                  Dr.Morner is the chief scientist who was involved in collecting the tide gauge samples.His critics, and I read Franks lead, are computer scientists who wouldn’t know a tidal gauge from their ass.They were both paid propagandists for NASA.Dr. Morner, who is now retired, has no monetary reason for his position, unlike his detractors!It was Dr. Worners job to provide evidence of the sea levels! Why should he not take note of the evidence he was providing? As for the planet heating up, I have never given an opinion on that aspect. My sole opinion is about the non rising of sea levels! As he was the foremost authority on sea levels as measured by tidal gauges, he became rather upset to find them manipulated and altered by personages who wished to advance their theories!

                  • They were both paid propagandists for NASA

                    Interesting that climate change deniers are beginning to attack NASA. It is NASA that is providing on-going data on rising temperatures and sea levels. Therefore they’ve become the new target for attacking their credibility.

                    Dr.Morner is the chief scientist who was involved in collecting the tide gauge samples.

                    Over what period of time?

                    What are his climate qualifications? (He does not appear to be a qualified climate scientist, Pete.)

                    Who funds him?

                    As for the planet heating up, I have never given an opinion on that aspect. My sole opinion is about the non rising of sea levels!

                    If the planet is heating up (as data indicates, as well as our increasingly hot days) – what, in your opinion, happens to ice as temperature rises? What happens to water when it is warmed up? What happens to the tundra permafrost in Siberia?

                    Does Dr Morner offer any views on those questions? Can you provide links to his work in this area? Published papers? Anything?

                    … he became rather upset to find them manipulated and altered by personages who wished to advance their theories

                    Who are these mysterious “personages”? You keep referring to them, but offer no names.

                    • Historian Pete says:

                      Try typing in” Nasa manipulation of satellite data” and see what you get.What are his climate quqlifications? For crying out loud! He collected tidal gauge data, analysed it, and sent it to the relevant authorities, who proceeded to distort and manipulate it.What part of that don’t you understand Frank? Who are these mysterious personages?Do you actually read and comprehend what others write,Frank? I stated the IPCC and Nassa! And the critics you cited are both paid propagandists for Nassa and computer scientists.

                    • You still refuse to provide citations, Pete? Why is that?

                      Surely if Mörner’s information is so convincing, you’d be able to point us to his peer-reviewed works? Your lack of referencing his supposed “credentials” and “research” indicates you’re not keen to share that with us.

                      Well, that’s ok. Here’s a bit of research I did myself…

                      On 3 December 2011 (an article now six years out of date), ‘The Spectator’ published a piece by Nils-Axel Mörner entitled “Rising credulity – The truth about sea levels? They’re always fluctuating”. (ref: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2011/12/rising-credulity/)

                      In it, he cited his opinion on a “true authority on sea level rises” as International Union for Quaternary Reseach (INQUA). He further said he had been a past-President of this group;

                      The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC. Our research is what the climate lobby might call an ‘inconvenient truth’: it shows that sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries. This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. They rose in the order of 10 to 11cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe even fell a little until 1970, and have remained roughly flat ever since.

                      However, when quoting INQUA as a credible source, Mörner omits one simple fact – INQUA disavows his views completely. Indeed, INQUA – which Mörner cites as a credible authority – has stated quite clearly;

                      There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and, indirectly, from increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes in many physical and biological systems. It is very likely that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is due to human-induced increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (IPCC 2007).

                      ref: INQUA STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE – https://www.inqua.org/files/iscc.pdf

                      Indeed, INQUA is not happy that Mörner is exploiting his past association with that group to promote his dubious ideas;

                      Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view do not represent 99% of its members, and the organisation has previously stated that it is “distressed” that Mörner continues to falsely “represent himself in his former capacity.”

                      ref: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims

                      By the way, that same Guardian article describes Mörner as a geologist, not a climate scientist. His so-called research is dismissed as bunkum.

                      Half an hour of research. With citations. And showing that Mörner is a charlatan.

                      There is zero evidence that satellite data has been fabricated. And you, Pete, still have not produced any reference to back it up.

              • John W says:

                Pete you have shown that your level of expertise in this area is very much in doubt.

                Pulling up quotes from individuals is pretty much cherry picking unless they are speaking for a scientific consensus after adequate and recognised peer review.

                Embedding an argument in detail and avoiding the bigger picture is a trap the unwary can fall into.

                We have passed 400ppm of CO2 and the rate of change is accelerating.

                Not a time for viewing grains of sand like an Ostrich or treating the changing world as a study of history.

                • Samwise says:

                  Lol!! Pete just had his ass handed to him by a blogger who knows his shit. PEte was counting on no one checking his claims on the internet!!!Too fucking funny,!

                • Historian Pete says:

                  It is not my level of expertise we are talking about John.I don’t claim to be a scientist. It is the level of expertise of Dr.Worner, chief scientist for tidal gauges.Please tell me who exactly has more expertise and experience in this area than Dr. Worner? When you are taking a measurement from a tidal gauge you do not add in a calculation for the level of CO2. Your comment is frankly sub-cerebral!

                  • Priss says:

                    I think Frankhas shot down “Dr” Mörner’s “expertise” quite nicely with his January 18, 2018 at 7:13 pm post.

                    I think this is way above your head, Pete.

                    • Patrick says:

                      [Comment declined for publication. There is no policy in place Patrick that other posters must stop making their comments just because your posting privileges have been temporary suspended. Your suspension applies to you. – Scarletmod]

    • Perhaps they believe in balance.

      Balance?

      Balance to what?

      Science is not opinion or faith-based, requiring balancing opinions and faiths. It’s based on data.

      And the data shows a planet that has been warming up for the last century.

      Expecting “balance” is akin to expecting Flat Earthers to be able to present their views to counter current cosmological reality.

      Or that Earth is the center of the solar system.

      Or that Father Christmas delivers toys to millions of kids in Christian-based countries, obviously travelling at near-light velocity to achieve this feat.

      How much more ridiculous do you want to make this, Patrick?

      • Patrick says:

        Frank,
        I see you are in attack dog mode. You can’t attack Pete’s logic so you attack me – that’s normal.
        Am totally in History Pete’s camp on this.

        Like “History Pete” I believe in hard data and that is what you get from tide gauges..
        The tide gauge at Lyttelton shows that over a 114 year period to 2015 the annual rate of rise has been a standard 2.12mm.( National NZ average 1.7mm)
        I am reliably informed that the last 2 years have been the same.
        So, over a 116 year period the rate of rise has not changed. ie a total rise in Lyttelton of 24.6cm.

        Two Saturdays ago the Press ran a feature article on how a 20cm sea level rise in Christchurch would make beach properties uninsurable and went on to say that this could happen a soon as 20 years from now – ie 2038.
        No evidence was given as to how this rise was calculated but most people who read the article probably believed it.

        If we go back to the hard data the rate of increase over 116 years has been 2.12mm per year.

        Lets be clear on this. The 2.12mm is not an average. It is the annual rate of rise which hasn’t changed in 116 yrs.
        Using this hard data the rate of sea level rise to be expected over the next 20 years is 4.2 cm not the 20cm promoted in the Press article.
        Obviously, if the rate of rise in the next few years increases then the position would be revisited but at this stage there is no evidence that the rate will change in the immediate future.

        Just to restate. The evidence for sea level rise is irrefutable, it’s the rate of increase that is in dispute.

        I live in a street with an ocean beach on one side and an estuary front on the other – a sand spit.
        Two years ago a couple, both university lecturers with climate change as their specialty, bought a section on the ocean side and have since built their family home. They are both comfortable with the situation as they believe the science behind the accelerated rate of climate change currently in favour is seriously flawed.(Acknowledge the truth says up to 20m this century which would spell the end of NZ as where would the money come from to relocate all our coastal cities)
        Both these scientists would like to join the CCRU ( Canterbury Coastal Residents United ) group who also question the validity of some of the science, but have stated they cannot as it could affect future job prospects as right now their views are against the main stream, but that doesn’t make them wrong.

        The next few years will prove beyond doubt whether sea level rise is accelerating or not so rather than go off the deep end why not wait a year or two and see what happens and perhaps the view of History Pete, me, and hundreds of thousands of other informed scientists and thinking people will become mainstream.

        Frank, the figures I have given are hard data, not opinion based.
        The data shows that indeed the planet has been warming for more than a century and so have the oceans been rising- that’s not in dispute.

        Balance on such an important matter has never been needed more.
        The hard scientific evidence shows the actual rise but popular science has developed models to show greatly accelerated rises without hard data.
        I go with the hard data.

        In the meantime Frank, could you please show me where the flaws in the figures on sea level rise at Lyttleton are and give your own data based figures as to why the rise is accelerating.

        • If we go back to the hard data the rate of increase over 116 years has been 2.12mm per year.

          Lets be clear on this. The 2.12mm is not an average. It is the annual rate of rise which hasn’t changed in 116 yrs.
          Using this hard data the rate of sea level rise to be expected over the next 20 years is 4.2 cm not the 20cm promoted in the Press article.

          Yes. Let’s be clear about this, Patrick and Peter. You both accept that sea levels have been rising over the last hundred years or so.

          You’re simply quibbling over how much.

          Both of you present information without any citations whatsoever. Which makes it difficult to assess the views you are giving and the figures you’re offering. You’re expecting us to take your “facts” on trust?

          In the meantime, global temperatures continue to rise; polar ice caps and Greenland’s glaciers continue to melt; and sea levels are rising (which you both reluctantly concede).

          Two years ago a couple, both university lecturers with climate change as their specialty, bought a section on the ocean side and have since built their family home. They are both comfortable with the situation as they believe the science behind the accelerated rate of climate change currently in favour is seriously flawed.

          Good luck to them. They will need it. Climate change deniers (or Quiblers, now that outright denial is no longer a credible option) are free to buy up all the coastal property they wish.

          As long as they aren’t expecting taxpayers to pay for sea-barriers to increasingly heightened storm surges as sea levels rise. https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/01/17/guest-blog-denis-tegg-storm-surge-and-sea-flood-firth-of-thames-jan-5-2018/

        • Frank,
          I see you are in attack dog mode.

          No, Patrick. I question. I certainly do not accept the opinions of climate change deniers/quiblers without firm evidence.

          • Patrick says:

            Frank, I gave the evidence from the NZ government website you quoted earlier in this post.
            You also quoted the Lyttelton increase as 2.12mm per year.
            Why do you behave in this childish manner.
            Go back to your own “citations” as YOU quoted earlier in this thread.

            I am not quibbling about how much – I am presenting figures showing the rise.as it actually is.

            Instead of blabbering do what I asked.

            Show the error of my figures and give me yours.

            Go on Frank. Show us your proof and stop evading the issue

            • Not sure what you’re arguing about, Patrick. The figures and citations I offered show an increase in sea levels. Are you arguing that or what? Because you’re not making any sense.

              • Patrick says:

                Frank,
                there you go again!

                You know exactly what my position is but it seems you don’t have data to prove otherwise so you continue with your childish responses.
                You attack me because I use the same figures you quoted to show the rate of sea level rise has been constant for the last 116 years.
                Why do you do that?

                Seems like you either didn’t read my post or you can’t understand it?
                I have tasked you with showing me the error of my figures and to show yours.

                You will not. Why not?

                Frank. Pay attention.
                Show me by using the hard data you profess to like, the error of my figures.

                Show me, with hard data, why the sea level is rising much faster in Christchurch – and all New Zealand – than the Lyttelton tide gauge shows over a 116 year period.

                Frank. Don’t do your usual and attack a few words of a post while ignoring the main thrust.
                (That’s the way you do it. Avoid presenting proper data by attacking a couple of phrases rather than the main thrust of a post.)
                Unhelpful and totally wrong.

                Take the post in total and explain why the sea level rise I presented, backed by hard data, is wrong and you are right.

                Don’t fudge things this time Frank.
                Do your own research as History Pete and I have done and present figures, based on hard data to prove your position of accelerated sea level rise.

                Come on – if we are idiots, prove it with hard data as we have done with the figures we presented.

                • I refer you to my 2018/01/18 7:13 pm post on issues raised by Pete.

                  As for your quibbling, I suggest you check out the data yourself. Or are you a qualified climate scientist fit to challenge the data?

                  If you have specific questions relating to why “the sea level is rising much faster in Christchurch – and all New Zealand – than the Lyttelton tide gauge shows over a 116 year period” – has it occurred to you to check with NIWA yourself? Because challenging science on a political forum is about as screwed up as you can get, Patrick.

                  If you’re interested, pull your finger out and look into it. But don’t try to engage in obfuscation based on your beliefs rather than hard science. You’re wasting your time and mine.

                  But you won’t, because you’re not interested in the simple facts that sea levels are rising.

                  Argue it till you’re blue in the face. It’s still a reality.

                  • Patrick says:

                    Frank ,

                    wow what a 5 year old response to my post.

                    Sea level rise is stable in Christchurch. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

                    Frank, you argue otherwise. QED.

                    again you refuse to engage and your politics prevents you from admitting there could be a middle way.

                    You cannot have a discussion with someone with a closed mind like yours.

                    Over the last few years I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you can’t discuss anything because of our entrenched dogma.

                    Bye Frank. Your stance and answers to informed posts is ridiculous.

                    I feel sorry for you and anyone who lives with you – but I suspect you are on your lonesome.

                    • Patrick, I rationalise better when I’m alone.

                      Try it sometime.

                    • Priss says:

                      You’re arguing with hard facts, Patrick? Are you senile?

                      The data is fairly conclusive. If it’s wrong, give us the real facts and figures. Engaging in ad hominem doesn’t prove your point. It just shows you’re argumentative.

                  • John W says:

                    Frank your help given freely may fall on reluctant eyes/ears but what ever is said it won’t affect what is happening.

                    The temperature has risen a degree overall but there is a variation regionally. Water expands with temperature rise. Ice melts and mass ice on land is reducing and the water released is ending up in the sea. With higher temperatures, increase in atmospheric water is apparent. It is a slow process and but accelerating.
                    Hot air from Deniers won’t slow the process of sea level rise.

                • Samwise says:

                  You’re confused Patrick. Sea levels are rising. It’s what happens when ICE MELTS!! QED pal.

            • Priss says:

              Sorry, I’m confused Patrick. You’re saying you accept that sea levels are rising? Then you’re arguing it’s not? What exactly are you saying?Do you agree with the stats Frank has provided or not? Are sea levels around Lyttleton rising or not.

              I get the impression you’re playing the fool and arguing for the sake of it.

              • Patrick says:

                READ MY POSTS.
                I have NEVER said that sea level isn’t rising.
                Sea level has been rising at a steady rate for over 100 years.
                I live on the coast so have done plenty of homework as some members of CCC are talking of a 2m rise over the next century and they want our whole suburb gone!
                But the only evidence to back up their claims are computer models as to what MAY happen in the future which many scientists, including in this street, take issue with.
                I accept that the rate of rise will accelerate in the future but it hasn’t yet so those talking large rises have no hard evidence to back up their claims.

                The argument is :
                When will we see any acceleration in the rate of rise and by how much.

                Until then the alarmists are talking hot air.
                Clear now?

                • So you agree with the evidence of rising sea levels?!

                  It is difficult to understand what you’ve been arguing about, Patrick. If you’re truly curious to understand how much sea levels are expected to rise, you’d do better to research this issue from credible sources rather than rather your time quibbling.

                  • Patrick says:

                    Frank,

                    if I had hair I would tear it out.
                    You have obviously not bothered to read any of my posts which all refer to sea level rise.
                    The CCC want this suburb of 1500 people gone. as they don’t see us as people, only dots on a map.
                    Do you think our group has not looked to other sources?
                    The CCC are using a Tomkin Taylor report, which isn’t a report at all as it’s cobbled together from existing data.
                    The group has forced the CCC to back down on some of the report but not all.

                    Why do you think the CCC has picked on our suburb and not Sumner and Heathcote both of which are lower than us with flood risk from the Port Hills, the open sea, the estuary and the Heathcote river.

                    Money.

                    They could raise a fighting fund of $100,000 in five minutes and another $500,000 given a week.
                    That’s why the CCC are leaving them alone and making it difficult for the poor cousins of the East.
                    We have the experts to counter the arguments but not the cash to fight them in court.
                    To make it clear for you Frank I will repeat it again.

                    I am not quibbling about sea level rise ( neither is History Pete ) but the rate of increase which is so important to all beach areas in NZ.

                    The CCC is working on worst possible while we are working on actual.

                    You talk about credible sources. There really arn’t any other than those that quote hard evidence as the rest are based on computer models and false information.

                    Some of those whom I’m sure you would count as credible have been predicting large increases in sea level rise for 15 years, BUT IT HASN”T EVEN STARTED YET.

                    When we get hard evidence of increases, that is the time to make new calculations.
                    This suburb will still be here in 100 years, far to far out for you to say those on the side of caution were so much closer to the mark than the doomsday people, as all of us will be long dead.

                    Meanwhile “We will fight them on the beaches.

                    • Otto Mann says:

                      Patrick, now you’re being confusing. You’ve agreed that sea levels are rising, then you criticise the CCC for not permitting building on coastal land? Do you not understand that by permitting new building they leave themselves open to future lawsuits?

                      You’ve spent several dozen posts arguing with Frank about rising sea levels, only to admit that yes, they are rising.

                      It’s dead simple, if sea levels are rising, we don’t buiild on vulnerable coastal properties. The number of submerged islands in the Pacific is a clear and present warning to us.

          • Patrick says:

            [Comment declined for publication. Patrick, this post and your previous one are beyond the pale. You may consider yourself banned from this Forum. – Scarletmod]

        • John W says:

          The annual rated of average sea level rise across the globe is changing. MSM may not give you that. MSM reporters are usually no trained in the science they are reporting on.

  3. Afewknowthetruth says:

    ‘A marine heatwave has led to New Zealand’s coastal waters jumping 2-4C warmer than a year ago.

    The South Island has seen the most drastic change with some waters recording a jump of 6C, and temperatures sitting as high as 20C in December, according to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA).

    ………It’s nothing to be too alarmed about….’

    https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/sea-temperatures-rise-across-nz/ar-AAuM5Fh?li=AAaeXZz&ocid=spartandhp

    And so, as the meltdown of the planet accelerates (as is clearly indicated by the Antarctic sea ice cover, which is not only the lowest ever recorded but also showing the most rapid fall on record https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent )

    we are told by the corporate media (quoting someone who is not a geochemist) that it’s nothing to be alarmed about.

    Of course, we now know that NZ is run by banks and corporations for the short-term benefit of banks and corporations, and that the fossil fuel lobby sector and the road transport sector can churn out any misinformation they like and get away with it.

    Business-as-usual is the only narrative the corporate sector knows. Business-as-usual is the only narrative the media knows. Business-as-usual is the only narrative central and local government know, even if business-as-usual leads to utter catastrophe in the medium term and ultimately results in extinction of the human species (along with extinction of most other species on this planet).

    Business-as-usual means continued mass consumption of fossil fuels, so we can look forward to continued increases in atmospheric CO2, more overheating, and ever worsening climatic conditions, until the insane economic system collapses.

  4. CLEANGREEN says:

    Patrick you believe the media believe in balance????????

    Go back to your media and chirp that climate change is not real to collect your pay chappy.

    Good for you when your property is under water you may wake up then perhaps or not.

    Martyn you ask “Why are Fairfax giving this bullshit platform?”

    Simply fairfax are desperate for funds, and will take even the oil companies ‘dirty money’ sadly theyb have no moral compass..

    • Andy says:

      Christchurch coastal property owners are being told that they can’t rebuild on their land. No doubt you are happy about this. Happy about old poor people that have scrimped and saved all their lives to have their lives ruined by eco-fascist garbage that work in the city planning department,

      • Patrick says:

        Andy, the people with power who work in the Christchurch City Council unfortunately have but 2 major agendas.
        Bike lanes in a large sprawleing city with pathetic public transport at the expense of cars and parking – and a fixation about accelerated sea level rise without supporting evidence.
        The main culprits are being paid close to $200,000 per year with a mandate to ignore the ratepayers and push through whatever the “100 resilient cities” calls for.
        Takeover at ratepayers expense – Hitler would love to know how it was done without blood being spilled.
        Submissions, daily letters to paper from a diverse section of the city all to no avail.
        We know what is best for you.

        • Priss says:

          That’s BS, Patrick. You’re ignoring the simple reality that Council’s have to be careful where they allow building to occur. With rising sea levels comes greater risk of flooding and future litigation. You may deny rising sea levels, but that’s more a testiment to your own stupidity than anything else.

          The Council is correct on this issue.

          • Patrick says:

            Well isn’t it stange that Mitre 10 mega and Countdown have built new on land in Ferrymead less than 2m above sea level.
            You know nothing about the way the CCC operates.
            And you obviously didn’t read my posts which are all about RISING sea levels.
            Only problem posters on this blog have is that I was backing my figures with facts as was History Pete, but you don’t want facts to get in the way of a good story do you.
            The alarmists on this blog who rubbish people like me don’t actually come up with any facts.
            Put your money where your mouth is!
            What is the current sea level rise around NZ now and how much more will it be 10 years from now?
            Go on then.

    • Patrick says:

      Gleangreen,
      what on earth has got into you? Did you accidentally swallow a bottle of angry pills?
      “Go back to your media…..and collect your pay chappie.”

      The scientific community is divided on the rate of climate change.
      That’s a fact and it d be debated.

      • John W says:

        IPCC is not divided and have shown to be chronically conservative.

        Each report shown that the last one was inadequate in its
        assessment of the changes happening.

        And that is in spite of the sanitising process embedded that minimises the messages in statements agreed to by the global scientific community.

        There are people like Edmeades who have tied themselves to vested interests including fertiliser companies and business as usual practices. I note that he criticises Mike joy but not the science behind what Mike says. Kill the Messenger tactics.

  5. Andy says:

    The world ins’t “dangerously super heating”. The world has warmed by approx 0.9 degrees in the last 100 years

    • Sam Sam says:

      It’s not the temperature that’s a problem it’s the rate at which it increases that’s the problem.

    • So you’ve come to the realisation that the planet is heating up, Andy?

      Next step is to understand how much that 1 degree warming in one century is impacting on our environment.

      I refer you to this NASA fact-sheet;

      Since around the time of the Industrial Revolution (the late 18th and early 19th centuries), Earth’s atmosphere has warmed by a little less than 1° C (1.8° F) . In turn, the ocean has also risen by about 15 centimeters (6 inches) over the past 100 years — for two reasons. First, when water warms up, it expands, in much the same way as a solid does when it heats up. As the volume of seawater increases, it causes sea level to rise. Second, global warming causes glaciers and ice sheets to melt, which adds more water to the world’s ocean, again causing sea level to rise

      Furthermore;


      * The warming trend over the last 50 years (about 0.13° C or 0.23° F per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.
      * The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapor that warmer air can hold.
      * Since 1961, the average temperature of the global ocean down to depths of at least 3 km (1.9 miles) has increased. The ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system, causing seawater to expand and contributing to sea level rise.
      * Global average sea level rose on average by 1.8 mm (0.07 inches) per year from 1961 to 2003. There is high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century.
      * Average arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years.
      * Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise.
      * Long-term trends in the amount of precipitation have been observed over many large regions from 1900 to 2005.

      ref: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/175/the-ups-and-downs-of-global-warming/

      Sorry to copy & paste these tracts, but the information is readily available for anyone wanting to see it.

      Trying to argue it away on a political forum like this is meaningless.

    • John W says:

      Andy that is dangerous.

      Our use of Non Renewable Natural Resources is even more dangerous.

      Climate shift is but one of many conditions that may well be terminal for humans.

      • Sam Sam says:

        I mean. Terminal for some humans who failed to plan and planned to fail… And other humans just really enjoy the engineering challenge climate change presents… Humans like those involved with ITER…

  6. Historian Pete says:

    I think it is a pertinent time to explore the New Guinea Cargo cult. Why? Because we have the modern day equivalent sprung up in our midst!But more of that later.
    During the second World War New Guinea natives observed American forces building airstrips in the jungle,and then cargo planes would arrive and disgorge a vaste array of goodies.So, the enterprising natives constructed their own airfields in the jungle, complete with control towers and wind direction instruments and waited. And waited!
    Today we have, and I coin the phrase “The Great Inundation Cult” who are waiting for the sea levels to rise catastrophically .Unfortunately the world wide tidal gauges measuring sea levels don’t show the sea level rising to the requisite level. So, our High Priest Cultists have come up with the cunning plan of falsifying the tidal gauge data to fit in with their theories.There is another snag. Throughout the West there has been an almost universal phenonema of journalist and scientists getting into line and echoing the ‘Western Narrative”. Dr. Worner, who was chief scientist for the tidal gauges ,is that rare individual who refuses to be bullied or silenced. This hoax has been aided and abetted by the IPCC falsifying data and NASA.[with bogus satellite measurements.]
    Unfortunately for the GIC [Great Inundation Cult],this is not a great long term business plan,as it is going to be obvious to the casual observer in the near future that the sea levels are not rising more than 1.1 mm universal mean per annum!
    Cultists like to identify themselves,so I would expect that they will start wearing a uniform of sorts,- perhaps a matching ensemble of gumboots,waterwings, tie or scarf,emblazoned with suitable doom phrases.
    As the years go by , I suggest you will see sporadic outbursts of anger at the sea for refusing to rise above the 1.1 mm mean level.It will be much like King Canute raging at the temerity of the tide coming in.
    I predict Basil Fawlty like outbreaks, with GIC disciples thrashing the foreshore with branches of trees, in a vain attempt to teach it a lesson!
    And those not fooled by the Great inundation Hoax, like me, will chuckle, and wonder that Mankind ever managed to climb out of the primeval ooze , with such stupidity abroad!?!

    • Patrick says:

      Pete,
      Right on Pete, but don’t expect anyone in this thread agree with you as their minds are closed.
      There are none so blind as those who deliberately refuse to see.
      Frank and co are deliberately misrepresenting the figures we have given because it doesn’t fit with their belief system.
      For some weird reason this accelerated sea level rise has become a mantra of the left.
      They cannot produce hard evidence that this is so but as we have seen will certainly not accept REAL evidence based on tide gauges which do not lie.
      Of course the next few years will show that their current predictions are wrong but they will just move the timeframe forward without admitting any mistakes. Look how Frank is ducking and diving.
      As Christchurch coastal residents we are in battle with CCC staff who have been put in place by a mayor who believes in managed retreat from the coast. BUT, for the lower value coastal suburbs only. No mention of retreat for Sumner or Ferrymead residents who are actually lower lieing than we are.
      It’s all about screwed up politics – facts do not count.

      • Frank and co are deliberately misrepresenting the figures we have given because it doesn’t fit with their belief system.

        The figures demonstrate rising sea levels at several points around New Zealand, Patrick.

        Our coastal sea level (relative to land) is rising.
        Available tide gauge data showed rising trends in all long-term monitored sites over approximately 100 years, between 1900 and 2013.
        The Wellington tide gauge showed the most marked trend: + 2.14 ± 0.16 mm/year. Other sites with less marked changes were:
        Auckland + 1.55 ± 0.08 mm/year
        Dunedin + 1.36 ± 0.08 mm/year
        Lyttelton + 1.98 ± 0.09 mm/year
        New Plymouth + 1.31 ± 0.28 mm/year.

        ref: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/environment/environmental-reporting-series/environmental-indicators/Home/Marine/coastal-sea-level-rise.aspx

        No “belief system” required. The data speaks for itself.

        You, on the other hand are going around in circles.

      • By the way, Patrick, your penchant for copying phrases from myself and others is… a bit strange.

        • Patrick says:

          Frank, There you go again.
          Twisting and manipulating – no wonder you live alone. Your lack of love and intimacy is so apparent through your Barron posts, poor fellow.
          My posts have used exactly the data on the govt website to show the rise for the last 116 years but you have twisted it to say I deny that sea level is rising.
          So stupid.
          It’s been rising but for the last century and the rise has been stable.
          All my posts and History Pete have said this.
          You are not so stupid that you can’t understand our figures – same site as yours – but you pretend you cant because of some idiot ideology.
          Come on Frank.
          Stand up and be counted!

          What is the current sea level rise in NZ waters and what will it be 10 years from now?

          I accept that it will accelerate in the future but WHEN and by HOW MUCH.
          Come on Frank. Put up or shut the hell up!
          Hard data to prove your calculations please.

          And also please show references from this
          thread which show I deny sea level rise.
          Don’t understand how or why your left wing politics should change the reality of the tide charts.

          Read History Pete’s last post.
          His analogy of the Solomon Islanders
          Cargo cult fits your handle on this to a tee. Same mentality unfortunately.

          Why not do something right out of character and put the attack dog back in the shed and supply hard data to back up your claims?

          Not “click here” but your own researched figures with references at the end.
          Go on! Put your money where your mouth is.

          “and your penchant for coping phrases from MYSELF.and others…..”
          Just how self important are you Frank .?… from ME and others is correct English and would also show some humility but I guess that’s a huge ask for your inflated ego.

          I can’t understand how I could have quoted you as your reasoning is so puerile you have kindergarten kids in stitches.
          Where did I quote you Francis?

          In you reply don’t pick on one or two phrases as I asked you not to previously but you couldn’t help yourself as it’s so much easier and lazy to do it that way.
          Pathetic.

          Be bold and different and and try something completely new that you have never done before.
          Reply to the body of the post!!!

          And if you want to prove you are a man rather than some sort of insect` comment of Pete’s post too.
          Can you?
          From past history you can’t and won’t.
          But wouldn’t it be great if you broke the mold and replied without the stupid ideology you hide behind.

          • Eh? What does my living arrangements have to do with sea levels rising (as has been documented ad nauseum)? Whether I live by myself (which is none of your business) or a rugby team (also none of your precious business) doesn’t change the fact the sea levels have risen as ice melts and heated water expands.

            According to the NOAA;


            Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.

            […]

            The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. The oceans are absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.

            ref: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

            According to Newscientist, this has had a detrimental affect on several Pacific Islands;

            At least eight low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean have disappeared under rising seas.

            Sea levels are currently climbing by an average of 3 millimetres per year around the world due to climate change. But they are creeping up even faster in the western Pacific, where a natural trade wind cycle has caused an extra build-up of water over the last half-century.

            In Micronesia and the Solomon Islands, which lie in the western Pacific, sea levels have risen by up to 12 millimetres per year since the early 1990s.

            In 2016, a study led by Simon Albert at the University of Queensland in Australia found that five of the Solomon Islands had been lost since the mid-20th century.

            ref: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2146594-eight-low-lying-pacific-islands-swallowed-whole-by-rising-seas/

            If you dispute the informationprovided, please explain why and what evidence you have to contest the data. So far your verbosity and commentary on my personal circumstances offers no “alternative facts” for us to consider.

          • Otto Mann says:

            “Twisting and manipulating – no wonder you live alone. Your lack of love and intimacy is so apparent through your Barron posts, poor fellow.”

            Really, Patrick?

            So you have no counter-arguments to make, just a passing sneaky attack on a person’s living arrangements? It’s hard to take you serioously when that’s the level you descend to.

            • Patrick says:

              [Comment declined for publication. Enough of commenting on peoples’ personal details, Patrick. Your ad hominems are past acceptable. Your posting privileges are suspended for 24 hours, for you to cool down. – Scarletmod]

              • Patrick says:

                Amazing Scarlet that I cannot comment on the nasty things that Frank has said about me where for so long I have resisted the urge to lower myself to his level.

                Enough of peoples personal details!!!

                Why was it acceptable for Frank to call me racist, Moslimophobic and so much other crap.

                You never called him out and told him to cool down.
                He can call me names but I am not even allowed to say what they were.

                What double standards you allow. People like Frank – and by extension the keeper of the morals, you, have in being unable to accept any other views but their own narrow point of view.

                Why don’t you at least try to do the decent thing and censure out the things you find unacceptable.

                That, at least. would show some sense of balance which you have never shown with Franks accusations.

                Most Kiwi’s can see two sides to a story and live with differences.
                One dimensional people like Frank can’t which, in my view, makes them failed human beings.

                Wow, did I give him the benefit of the doubt.

                In a nutshell, you have no right to censer my scribblings when you never censored Franks unwarranted and unfounded attacks based on racism religious intolerance etc.
                I say again. Publish what you feel is OK. Not a single “fuck” in my post which I guess is a black mark.
                Lets see if you can give a departing poster who is totally sick of narrowness of this blog a reasonable parting shot.

                For the record I do feel sorry for Frank living in his narrow little world, achieving nothing on a personal basis and glued to his keyboard wife justifying his narrow views and totally unable to see another point of view.

          • ALH84001 says:

            “Twisting and manipulating – no wonder you live alone. Your lack of love and intimacy is so apparent through your Barron posts, poor fellow.”

            That’s one of the nastiest swipes I’ve read on this blog, Patrick. You must feel very threatened by Frank’s arguments to resort to such personal attack to undermine him?? Aside from which, you’re 100% wrong. You obviously haven’t met the people he lives with.You’re an odious little man Patrick to have to resort to that kind of filth.

  7. Historian Pete says:

    The corruption that is indicated among environmental scientists falsifying data from the physical environment begs the question ,where did this come from? Is this corruption exceptional or is it endemic? The answer lies in the endemic corruption that can be observed in the U.S. in just about every occupation and discipline.No surprises about the lawyers [most members of Congress], and bankers/financial consultants.Only four Economists predicted the 2008 Financial crisis, out of thousands.There are the Doctors:70,000 who were found to be over prescribing their patients with opioids, which has led to mass addiction and a progression to heroin addiction and all the attendant social problems.This is only the tip of the iceberg as can be shown in multiple areas such as unneccessary surgical operations.”Do no harm” has been replaced by “maximise the contents of my bank account”.And then we have the scientists.In the pharmaceutical and agricultural industries we have scientists involved in revolving doors with the regulatory authorities , receiving handsomely paid jobs for showing a blind eye to bogus testing.”Independent scientists” putting articles in professional journals turning out to be paid consultants for nefarious Corporations such as Montsanto.Scientists are bought and sold like prostitutes in a Bordello, except the prostitutes are more honest!
    So why doesn’t the U.S. Government clean this up? You have to be joking! 95% of members of Congress vote according to the dictates of their lobbyists .And hopefully you observed [on Fox, CNN,BBC, or RT] the members of the Congress Investigation Committee cross examining the chief executives of Twitter ,Facebook, and Google about Russia interfering in the U.S election.When they confessed that they had no evidence, they were told on camera, in front of the Nation, that they better come up with some ,or there would be serious repercussions. In other words, either find it or manufacture it!
    With the Man Made Global Warming movement it soon became clear that the road to a cushy job with generous research grants was to enthusiastically embrace Global Warming, and in fact the more extreme your predictions, the more your income went up!
    And so we had extreme pressure on physical scientists to come up with the data to mirror the Computer Scientists predictions.In the context of a thoroughly corrupt business environment, it is probably hardly surprising that they quickly moved to the norm i.e. Fake it till you make it! They were positive that the sea levels would go up to the requisite levels eventually, so why not falsify the tidal gauge data? Like, everyone else is falsifying data! Why shouldn’t we? And everyone else has got into line. Why not Dr.Worner? And if he doesn’t ,we will do to him what we have done to others like Essange. Destroy his reputation with bogus crimes/manufactured documents/manipulation of his colleagues.
    So, how does Western Civilization prosper with this scenario? Well, of course it doesn’t.The end of all great civilizations has been preceded by endemic corruption.Way back we zigged when we should have zagged.Instead of ” honesty and integrity” we went for” maximize your personal income and to hell with everyone else.” It could have been so different.” Perhaps that will be our epitaph!!!

    • Nice little deflecting conspiracy lecture. None of which has anything remotely to do with climate change.

      But it doesn’t answer the question as to who has been “manipulating” satellite data. That’s a serious allegation to make. Surely you must have an answer ,Pete.

      • Historian Pete says:

        How many times do I have to say that NASA is manipulating Satellite Data Frank? The same group that Dr.Worner says is manipulating Satellite data.If I said it in Mandarin would it help? All I have said about the endemic corruption in the U.S is readily available if you go beyond the MSM. You don”t , so you are doomed to be always a sycophant mesmerized with your admiration for the neo-liberal establishment. Get over your Clintonista disappointment! The corruption I have itemized is very relevant as it explains how formerly honest scientists back in the days have become corrupted.I don’t believe that the scientists in the 50’s and 60’s were corrupt like they are today. I don’t believe NASA was corrupt either. Their rockets flew reliably then, unlike today.Do you have some other explanation for the ineptness of todays NASA scientists? In the same way, a journalist like Walter Cronkite, who was respected by the U.S.Nation, could not exist in the MSM in the U.S. today. He would be fired for not parroting the Western narrative, as all journalists who have done so have found out!

        • Where is Dr Mörner’s evidence that NASA “is manipulating Satellite data”? Just because he says it’s a thing doesn’t make it true. If you’re taking him on faith, then say so and we move on.

          • Historian Pete says:

            Why don’t you answer my questions? You only ever answer my questions with a question. Such tactics is shoddy inept journalism!

            • So you can’t present Mörner’s evidence then?

              • Otto Mann says:

                Actually, I’d like to see references/citations to Morner’s claims as well. If NASA has fudged data, we should be able to asses his claims.

                Can you share the links with us Pete?

              • Historian Pete says:

                I will answer your question and then you will answer my questions.Patrick complains you have the mentality of a five year old. I have some sympathy with this view. Fortunately I have in the days taught 5 year olds, and indeed slow learners. So we have a chance here. I will type slowly. I want you against the odds to engage your grey matter. At this stage, in my class, I would engage your attention by directing homilies at you, such as “Frank,leave Hot Bettie’s pigtails alone, you grubby little Savage!” Or, “For Christs sake Frank, leave your tie alone!If you don’t stop touching your tie, you will go blind!” Get the picture? Now, Dr.Morner has been presenting the data on the tidal gauges for 35 years. He was the foremost authority on tidal gauges. He had an impeccable career. There was no good reason that anyone should not accept his data on the sea levels. There was no evidence that his tidal gauges were malfunctioning. And then the IPCC inexpliceably started changing his data to be 3 times his data level. And then NASA claimed their measurements to be the same as the IPCC. The explanation offered by the IPCC for changing Dr.Worners data was that it did not fit in with the computer simulations.At this stage you will no doubt be nodding your head Frank, and saying”perfectly reasonable of the IPCC and NASA.” You reside on a parallel universe where the rules are quite different from mine. On mine the end does not justify the means.
                Now, my question is:Why can Nasa no longer reliably put a rocket into orbit that does not have an unfortunate tendency to fall out of the sky? Is it because of ineptitude and corruption? And are they rather embarrassed that their only way up to the International Space Station is via a Russian rocket?- Now, I know you revere NASA and are near to vomiting at having to answer these questions- but man up! Steel yourself!

                • Pete, your comments are becoming more unhinged.

                  As for the person’s name, you can’t even seem to get that right. It’s “Morner” (according to your first reference to him dated January 17, 2018 at 8:23 pm) -not “Worner”.

                • Otto Mann says:

                  “Patrick complains you have the mentality of a five year old.”

                  Resorting to ad hominem attacks now, Historian Pete? You do realise that shoots you down and shows you lacking in any counter-information. If you have valid information, share it with us. Calling someone a five year old mentally doesn’t cut the mustard.

            • Otto Mann says:

              “Why don’t you answer my questions? You only ever answer my questions with a question. Such tactics is shoddy inept journalism!”

              Pete: He has answered it. When will you answer his (and mine): where is the evidence for Morner’s claims?

          • Patrick says:

            Frank,
            you obviously have orders from on high to resist any form of rational thinking or hard data on this subject.

            You gave no hard evidence to back your claims and chickened out on predicting future rises and timeframes.

            Of course your living arrangements have nothing to do
            with me. I was merely commenting on the sad little world you and your keyboard lead.

            Defending the indefensible seems to be your meat and drink.
            Bye Frank. When this thread finishes I won’t darken you lonely door again.

            • Otto Mann says:

              “You gave no hard evidence to back your claims and chickened out on predicting future rises and timeframes.”

              Actually Patrick, he’s presented good arguments and plenty of references. In fact, he presents more citations than you or Pete do (which is a bit annoying, to be honest).

              Attacking someone because they “might live alone” is a weird form of ad hominem. It says to me you can’t counter his points rationally and have to resort to personal denigration. If that’s the best you have, it’s not very convincing.

              You’ve conceded that sea levels are rising. The rest appears to be argument for it’s own sake.

              • Patrick says:

                With all due respect Otto you haven’t really read my posts and the information Frank provided isn’t factual.

                He has presented no good arguments that support an increase in sea level rise.
                He can’t because it isn’t happening.

                Look at the way he engages with Pete’s last post – he doesn’t engage at all.

                All he can quote are false facts based on flawed computer models – not hard evidence.

                He has also been misrepresenting the data posted by Pete and me for some nefarious purpose which is not clear to me.

                Over the past few years I have received many insults from Frank, from racist to president of the flat earth society – none of them valid but I have remained polite – until now.

                Now that I won’t post here again I couldn’t resist having a dig at Frank and his keyboard.
                His world of tap, tap tapping away for many hours every day is the reason his outlook is so narrow and prevents him from seeing the big picture on so many things.
                My life is too full to with more important things to continue to cross swords with one with such a narrow mind.

                Read my posts and those of History Pete’s.
                They are clear so why does Frank pretend he can’t understand them?

                No I don’t know either.

                • Patrick, You continue to contradict yourself in your long rambling diatribes (Most of which seemdirected at me, personally). You’ve stated in your post above;

                  “He[Frank] has presented no good arguments that support an increase in sea level rise.
                  He can’t because it isn’t happening.”

                  But in your previous posts you admit that sea levels are rising;

                  JANUARY 20, 2018 AT 12:53 AM

                  It’s been rising but for the last century and the rise has been stable.

                  […]

                  I accept that it will accelerate in the future but WHEN and by HOW MUCH.

                  JANUARY 20, 2018 AT 12:19 PM

                  I am not quibbling about sea level rise ( neither is History Pete ) but the rate of increase which is so important to all beach areas in NZ.

                  JANUARY 20, 2018 AT 9:18 AM

                  READ MY POSTS.
                  I have NEVER said that sea level isn’t rising.

                  Which is it, Patrick?! Rising or not? Up or down. Get your story straight and focus on the issues at hand. Perhaps if you refrained from commenting on my private life (which you seem creepily obsessed with) you would have more time to read up on what reputable science organisations have come up with.

                  But the greatest irony is where you seem to complain;

                  Now that I won’t post here again I couldn’t resist having a dig at Frank and his keyboard.
                  His world of tap, tap tapping away for many hours every day…

                  Congratulations on being so perceptive. I’m a blogger. Looks like the secret’s out, eh?

                  Unfortunately, every time you throw a tantrum and announce; “Now that I won’t post here again” – you’re back posting again.(You posted again, four hours later, at 10.18PM. And you’ll be at it again soon, no doubt.)

                  Meanwhile, I leave you with these items of information. First from NASA;

                  More than 90 percent of the heat from global warming is stored in the ocean, which means oceans are key players in global climate. Heat causes ocean water to expand, adding to sea level rise. Measuring both long-term sea level trends and the shape of the ocean surface related to currents, Topex-Poseidon and the Jason series provide two basic ingredients for understanding the ocean’s role in global climate variations.

                  “As human-caused global warming drives sea levels higher and higher, we are literally contributing to the reshaping of the surface of our planet,” said Josh Willis, NASA project scientist for Jason-3 at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “The precision altimetric satellite missions tell us how much and how fast.”

                  ref: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/25-years-of-global-sea-level-data-and-counting

                  And from the Russian RT News:

                  Lands inhabited by more than 150 million people could be submerged in water by the end of this century. That’s according to the latest projections from a group of US researchers.

                  A new study published in the journal Earth’s Future used the latest information from the Antarctic ice sheet and combined it with existing models on the expected rise in sea levels.

                  The academics behind the report found that if levels of greenhouse gas emission remain high, the median global average sea-level rise could be 4ft 9ins (1.5 meters) by 2100. Astonishingly, this is double the estimate of 2ft 5ins (736cm) projected by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2014.

                  The team, made up of researchers from the top universities in the US, believes the IPCC report did not account for the collapse of large parts of the Antarctic Ice Sheet – something a slew of scientific papers have since found is very likely to happen. In the event of such a sea level rise, some 153 million will be displaced, a population equivalent to half the size of the US.

                  ref: https://www.rt.com/news/413453-rising-seas-antarctic-underwater/

                  And from the Chinese media;

                  The decade between 2006 and 2015 saw the fastest rise of the past 30 years, with the mean sea level increasing by 32 millimeters and 66 millimeters, respectively, compared with the figures from the 1996-2005 period and 1986-1995 period, said the report.

                  The report stated that thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets on land due to global warming contribute to the accelerated rise in global sea level.

                  China has seen its air and seawater temperatures increase due to climate change, along with lower air pressure in coastal regions, resulting in rising sea levels, according to the report.

                  ref: https://www.shine.cn/archive/nation/Chinas-sea-level-is-rising-at-faster-rate/shdaily.shtml

                  So if there’s a “conspiracy” by the US space agency, NASA, (according to Pete, and which you have not dismissed outright), then our Russian and Chinese cuzzies are in on it as well?! Which means that only you and Pete know the truth!

                  Amazing stuff. Just imagine, NASA could’ve saved hundreds of millions by not launching satellites into space. They could’ve just talked to you both.

                  • Historian Pete says:

                    Ladies and gentlemen: I would now like to conclude my defence of Dr.Nils-Axel Morner , former chair of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department, Stockholm University.
                    Let me first clarify what is on trial today, in this court of public opinion on the Daily Blog.The man made climate theory is not on trial.Nor whether the sea level will eventually rise to the levels predicted by some scientists.What is on trial is whether the sea levels have risen as of August 2017 to the 1.1 mm universal mean as declared by Dr.Morner, or to 3mm as declared by the IPCC and Nasa.Also on trial is the reputation of Dr.Morner, the IPCC, and Nasa! And the whole ‘Western Narrative ” For a destardly crime has been committed, whether by Dr Morner, or by the IPCC and Nasa. Has Dr.Morner concocted a story about the tidal gauges readings for some nefarious purpose? Or have the IPCC and Nasa falsified in a foul and criminal manner the data?
                    Unfortunately actual physical evidence is some what thin on the ground at this hearing, and we are therefore going to have to rely on circumstantial evidence- basically that of motive and previous reputation.Dr Morner is recognized as the foremost authority on tidal gauge sea levels. For 35 years he has worked in this area. He has had an exemplary career without a blemish on his character. No faults have been found with the tidal gauge measurements.Therefore, for what reason would Dr Morner have for accusing the IPCC and Nasa of falsification of data? There is no monetary gain, and there is the risk to his reputation,built up over a lifetimes work in this area.
                    On the other side is the IPCC and Nasa.Computer scientists have exerted massive pressure on scientists conducting physical research to conform to the man made climate change theory.Promotion and grants have become very much tied up with a scientist espousing the politically correct attitude.I have already spoken of the systematic corruption that pervades the science community in the U.S. Empire. And I have also spoken of a systemic corruption that has enveloped the MSM and the political system in the U.S. I have also communicated about the once proud Nasa that put a man on the moon, but can no longer put a man on the International space station due to ineptitude and corruption.
                    Corruption has become the new norm in the U.S. Empire.In this atmosphere of generalised corruption I would charge that there is no surprise that if the sea level gauges did not register the politically correct figures ,they would simply change the data. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!
                    I would disregard, Ladies and Gentlemen, the sub-cerebral cavorting of the GIC set,[the Great Inundation Cult] and concentrate on the facts as presented.
                    And I would remind you that there is a higher authority judgement that will speak its mind in a few years to come- the sea!For within a few years it will become obvious which side is correct.So, I await the judgement of an immoveable object, not subject to U.S.Empire arrogance and corruption. Like with King Canute, the truth will out!!!

                    • Otto Mann says:

                      “The man made climate theory is not on trial.Nor whether the sea level will eventually rise to the levels predicted by some scientists”

                      WTF?

                      So what are you aruging? If you understand sea levels are rising, why’ve you wasted your time (and ours) posting screeds of rubbish about that Morner guy???

                      “Unfortunately actual physical evidence is some what thin on the ground ”

                      Translation: You got nuthin’.
                      I guess this is what climate change deniers are eventually shown up to be. Full of hot air. (Or CO2 in this case.)

                    • Pete, your 2018/01/21 at 10:28 am post is not only at odds with what you’ve written thus far – but continues to mis-represent/ignore details that have been pointed out to you. Are you not actually reading anything presented to you that challenges your belief-system?

                      The man made climate theory is not on trial.Nor whether the sea level will eventually rise to the levels predicted by some scientists.

                      Again, this is different to what you said earlier;

                      HISTORIAN PETE says:
                      JANUARY 17, 2018 AT 8:23 PM
                      You will be excited to know therefore of a new study by Dr.Nils Axel Morner-August 2017 -“Sea Level Manipulation”-Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm,Sweden.”Tide gauges find no global acceleration in sea level-But satellite data “manipulated” to show acceleration.”-published in International Journal of Engineering Science Invention.

                      And;

                      HISTORIAN PETE says:
                      JANUARY 18, 2018 AT 4:12 PM
                      My sole opinion is about the non rising of sea levels!

                      You wrote;

                      Or have the IPCC and Nasa falsified in a foul and criminal manner the data?
                      Unfortunately actual physical evidence is some what thin on the ground at this hearing, and we are therefore going to have to rely on circumstantial evidence

                      This appears to be a rather convoluted, verbose way of admitting that there is no evidence of any satellite data manipulation. You cannot present such evidence – despite my and Otto’s requests – because it does not exist.

                      Yet you have consistently presented Morner’s claims as undisputed fact;

                      HISTORIAN PETE says:
                      JANUARY 19, 2018 AT 11:35 AM
                      This hoax has been aided and abetted by the IPCC falsifying data and NASA.[with bogus satellite measurements.]

                      And;

                      HISTORIAN PETE says:
                      JANUARY 20, 2018 AT 11:45 AM
                      How many times do I have to say that NASA is manipulating Satellite Data Frank?

                      But at last you’ve confirmed that “actual physical evidence is some what thin on the ground“. In other words, Morner’s claims cannot be substantiated; are most likely bogus; and you’re been willing to aggressively promote them.

                      No wonder you have ducked every request I made of you for confirming evidence of Morner’s claims.

                      Your following statement is also not supported by facts already presented to you, Pete;

                      Dr Morner is recognized as the foremost authority on tidal gauge sea levels. For 35 years he has worked in this area. He has had an exemplary career without a blemish on his character. No faults have been found with the tidal gauge measurements.

                      Not only have faults been found with Morner’s work – but they have been largely debunked;

                      It was comprehensively debunked within a year in the same journal by Philip Woodworth, an oceanographer based in the UK, who wrote acidly that ‘reef woman’ “is hardly definitive as a sea level marker” and that Mörner’s convoluted arguments – which also relied on anecdotal accounts by fishermen sailing over shallow rocks – were “hard to understand” and ultimately “implausible”. A follow-up critical comment by the Australian oceanographer Paul Kench and colleagues notes that Mörner’s paper “contains a number of unqualified and unreferenced assertions” which fail to stand up to scrutiny, does not follow carbon-dating conventions, and that “standard information is missing”.

                      […]

                      In reality, three tide gauges exist in the Maldives, whose outputs are all available online and can be inspected by the public via the UK-based scientific collaborative research effort the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. One is in the south at Gan, which shows a clear and consistent rise since before 1990. A second is located at Hanimaadhoo in the north of the country, and shows no consistent trend from 1992. The third is at the capital Male’, and shows a strong upward trend from the early 1990s until 2009.

                      ref: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims

                      As for no blemishes on his career, the organisation that Morner cited as supporting his work – INQUA – has disavowed itself from his activities.

                      In 2011, Morner said in an article in ‘The Spectator’;

                      The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC. Our research is what the climate lobby might call an ‘inconvenient truth’: it shows that sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries. This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. They rose in the order of 10 to 11cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe even fell a little until 1970, and have remained roughly flat ever since.

                      (ref: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2011/12/rising-credulity/)

                      INQUA’s President at the time was scathing of Morner citing INQUA to back up his “work”;

                      Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view do not represent 99% of its members, and the organisation has previously stated that it is “distressed” that Mörner continues to falsely “represent himself in his former capacity.”

                      ref: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims

                      Indeed, quite contrary to Morner’s assertions, INQUA supported the findings of NASA and the IPCC;

                      There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and, indirectly, from increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes in many physical and biological systems. It is very likely that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is due to human-induced increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (IPCC 2007).

                      ref: INQUA STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE – https://www.inqua.org/files/iscc.pdf

                      As a credible source, Morner’s ‘work’ falls apart when subjected to some basic research. I find it disturbing, Pete, that you either have not realised the dubious nature of Morner’s claims – or have wilfully chosen to ignore them.

                      Unfortunately, despite your clear admission that actual physical evidence is some what thin on the ground , you persist with this unsubstantiated allegation;

                      On the other side is the IPCC and Nasa.Computer scientists have exerted massive pressure on scientists conducting physical research to conform to the man made climate change theory.

                      This is why climate change deniers have little credibility and are mocked. You throw around all manner of wild claims – yet never (or rarely) back them up. In this case, you’ve admitted that actual physical evidence is some what thin on the ground – but persist in making the same slanderous allegations.

                      The rest of your post is a flowery and eloquent speech using all the right code-words; “US Empire” (tick); “political correctness” (tick); NASA’s “inepititude and corruption” (tick); “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (tick); “Promotion and grants” (tick); ” the sub-cerebral cavorting of the GIC set,[the Great Inundation Cult] (?!?!)… and then you ask us to “concentrate on the facts as presented” (!).

                      As someone pointed out on this Forum;

                      The man made climate theory is not on trial.Nor whether the sea level will eventually rise to the levels predicted by some scientists.

                      Time to move on.

                  • Patrick says:

                    [ Comment declined for publication. You have ignored your posting privileges being rescinded for 24 hours. Consider your posting privileges rescinded for a further 24 hours, Patrick. Do not attempt to post anything further on this Forum under 10.30PM Monday. – Scarletmod]

                • Otto Mann says:

                  “With all due respect Otto you haven’t really read my posts and the information ”

                  With all due respect, don’t be so fucken arrogant. I’ve waded through all the comments here Patrick and I can determine for myself what has been written here thank you very much.

                  “He has presented no good arguments that support an increase in sea level rise.”
                  text

                  With all due respect, that shows you haven’t read anything Frank has written either.

                  ” He can’t because it isn’t happening.”

                  Oh FFS!!! Make up your mind! Somewhere up above you ADMITTED that sea levels are rising!! WTF is wrong with you?
                  It’s like I’m having a debate with a Creationist about evolution being a hoax!!

                  • Patrick says:

                    Otto,
                    no need to take that attitude.
                    I was only presenting facts.
                    The problem was you read what I wrote but processed it incorrectly.

                    I wrote
                    ” He presented no good arguments that support AN INCREASE in sea level rise.
                    He can’t because it isn’t happening.”

                    You missed the two important words – AN INCREASE.

                    If you have really read everything I wrote you will know that I was in full agreement with sea level rise.

                    Sea level has been rising since
                    tide gauges were first placed around NZ ports over a century ago.
                    All these gauges have reported annual sea level rises but the interesting thing is the sea level rises have been the same every year, with not a single one showing AN INCREASE in the rate of rise.
                    In other words the rise in sea level as reported by the Lyttelton gauge in 2017 is exactly the same in mm as that reported in 1901 and every year in between.
                    That is irrefutable evidence and comes from the NZ government website quoted by Frank in this very thread, that the rise has been stable for 116 years.

                    The CCC ( for example) is working on a figure of 50cm rise in 50 years and 1m in 100.( Interesting that their figure does not accelerate over the second 50 years.)
                    This is a huge increase over the stable figures over 116 years.

                    What hard evidence do they have to back up these figures?

                    None!

                    Their figures come from projected figures based on computer models that experts say show the INCREASING RISE. There are several models, so you can take your pick as to how much the rise will be over how many years.

                    So there are 2 camps. Those who think the matter is too important for educated guesses and that predictions should be based on hard data.
                    History Pete is in this camp and so am I together with millions of other people who want hard data not guesses.

                    We don’t dispute that sea levels are rising and we accept that at some point the rate of rise will ACCELERATE and also at some point sea levels will be meters above current levels but this ACCELERATION HASN’T HAPPENED YET so how can we make realistic predictions?

                    All we can do RIGHT NOW is base projections on 116 years of historical records.

                    When it does start to increase them models can be constructed based on hard data which can be reviewed every year according to what is actually happening.
                    When will this accelerated rise happen?

                    Nobody knows, but until it does it’s only “experts” guessing.
                    Will it be accelerating in 5 years from now?
                    Don’t know – we have to wait and see.

                    What do we know about “experts?”

                    Remember y2k?
                    Experts told us computers would no longer work, planes would fall out of the sky, forget internet banking or ATM’s they wouldn’t work and neither would electronic tills.
                    What did we do?
                    We believed the experts and spent billions of dollars worldwide to fix the problem
                    What happened?
                    Nothing.
                    The experts were wrong.

                    Remember bird flu. The experts said millions would die – the UN estimated between 5 and 150 million would perish.
                    What happened?
                    Bugger all really.

                    SARS – another endemic tipped by experts to kill millions.
                    Emptied planes and cost the world tourist industry billions in lost trade.
                    What happened?
                    700 dead but not the predicted millions.

                    Do you get the picture?
                    Experts, without hard data, get things so wrong.

                    Sea level rise is the most important thing ever to hit NZ, so guesses are no good.
                    Why?
                    Because sea level rise WILL affect more than a million Kiwis but why bugger up there lives by jumping the gun about where levels will be in the future.

                    The CCC ( for example) wants managed retreat from coastal areas and this will eventually happen. – but not yet.
                    “Managed retreat “sounds good but it actually means thousands of families abandoning their homes and moving to higher ground so lets make sure we get it right, so it can be done in a controlled way over decades.
                    These are not just street numbers and suburbs the are real people whose lives will be disrupted.

                    Why start the process on no more than educated guesses as with the current rate of increase it will be generations before it is necessary?
                    Why start the process now when there is no acceleration?
                    That’s our case Otto.

                    Pretty reasonable really.
                    Base future sea levels on actual figures not guesses!

                    • Historian Pete says:

                      A well thought out argument Patrick. Unfortunately you are arguing with people who treat the idea of climate change like it is a quasi-religion and they scream heresy at anyone who deviates from the one true rendition of the Bible of Man made climate change.We are surrounded by boggle eyed fanatics spitting “climate denier ” ! Well, I reply ” Great inundation Cultists! “What fun!!!

                    • Unfortunately you are arguing with people who treat the idea of climate change like it is a quasi-religion and they scream heresy…

                      Pete, You’ve admitted that Dr Morner’s claims evidence – yet still persist in quoting him.

                      Meanwhile, CO2 levels and temperatures are increasing; and sea levels continue to rise. Your attempt to devalue satellite data has been shown to be shonky. That is the definition of a religion or “quasi-religion” – maintaining a belief whilst admitting it lacks evidence.

                      Science is not on your side.

                    • Priss says:

                      Or, Pete, those people are challenging your own assumptions? I’ve been reading through the comments here, and it seems that you and Patrick are the ones that brook no dissent or questioning of your views.

                    • Priss says:

                      Patrick, so if I understand your peculiar train of thought; because the rate of sea level rise isn’t increasing (to a rate you don’t specify), but you agree that sea levels ARE rising, that the CC should allow biuilding on flood-prone land?

                      So tell us what you think will happen in 50 years time when sea levels impact on that land?

                      Who do you think will have to pay for remedial work?

                    • Samwise says:

                      Soooo… Patrick, what you are telling us is to WAIT until sea levels rise faster, and in the meantime let developers build on coastal areas?? You wouldn’t be a developer by any chance would you?

                      By the time sea level rises accelerate to a point even you and Pete can’t deny,it I’ll be too late for those who have invested heavily in their homes by the sea. It will be Leaky Homes all over again, this time from the sea,

                    • Patrick says:

                      Priss,
                      I did state the sea level rise in Lyttelton.
                      You must have missed it.
                      It’s 2.12mm per year and has been that way for 116 years.
                      So the level ( in Lyttelton) has risen 21.2cms in the last 100 years which is more than most other parts of NZ.
                      It seems that you don’t realise that most of Christchurch is in a flood plane. If the Waimakariri river were to burst it’s man made stop banks a large part of northern Christchurch would be inundated. ( I guess it’s ok for remedial work to stop inundation to take place around rivers, just not coastal areas. Is that it?)
                      All rebuilds from the earthquake which are in the designated flood plane ( 18,000 houses in total) must be built on high foundations. I think it’s 1m.
                      Strangely this does not apply to suburbs which would be affected by the Waimak bursting it’s stop banks.
                      All new builds in my suburb have to sign a disclaimer to the CCC stating that they are building at their own risk.
                      The husband and wife climate change scientists who completed their new home a few months back signed as they are confident that on the available evidence we will still be here 150 years plus from now.
                      I’m very happy to consider opposing views but wouldn’t it be nice if they were backed up by evidence – not mere guesswork.
                      What evidence have you brought to the table?
                      None.

                      Samwise.
                      No I am not a developer and as far as I’m aware no developers are permitted to open up new coastal areas. Certainly not in Christchurch.

                      I can’t speak for other regions but anyone “investing heavily in the homes by the sea” in Christchurch council area must sign a disclaimer that they are doing so at their own risk.
                      Right now there are 3 new builds in this street.

                      To reiterate – when sea level rise starts accelerating there will be plenty of time to make a model based on fact not guesswork.
                      200 years ago the Franz Joseph glacier could be seen from the sea. It, like all NZ glaciers and around the world are shadows of their former selves and polar ice has been melting at an increased rate for many years too, but still no sea level rise.
                      What evidence do you have to the contrary?

                      Historian Pete.
                      Agree.
                      We are heretics and are bloody lucky we are not being burnt at the stake like opponents of the one true faith or witches.
                      But hang on – the one true faith has been splintered into many and they don’t burn witches any more.
                      Well they weren’t really witches were they.
                      They were put to death, not because they were casting spells or refusing to accept accelerating sea level rise but because of ignorance!

                      That’s why I’m not posting here any more.

                      [Correct, Patrick. You will not be posting here anymore. After your subsequent post submitted for publication, and declined for ongoing personal abuse, your posting privileges are rescinded permanently. – Scarletmod]

                    • Patrick;

                      To reiterate – when sea level rise starts accelerating there will be plenty of time to make a model based on fact not guesswork.

                      That is absolute bollocks, Patrick and demonstrates your head in the sand attitude.

                      You’ve reluctantly admitted that sea levels are rising.

                      This correlates with increasing CO2 levels and hotter decades.

                      This correlates with melting ice caps and glaciers in Greenland.

                      To wait as you suggest is the last gasp of Climate Change deniers/quibblers and by then it will be too late.

                      The tragedy, Patrick, is that supposedly intelligent people understand the link between CO2, temperatures, and sea levels rising – yet you’re still making ridiculous suggestions to wait and see>

                      Your suggestion that there has to be acceleration in sea level rises is a recipe for disaster.

                      By then it will be too late.

                    • ALH84001 says:

                      “A well thought out argument Patrick. Unfortunately you are arguing with people who treat the idea of climate change like it is a quasi-religion and they scream heresy at anyone who deviates from the one true rendition of the Bible of Man made climate change.”

                      Really, Pete???

                      If anyone is engaging in a quasi-religion, it’s you and Patrick. You’re both screaming personal abuse at anyone challenging you.

                      And denying stats in favoour of long-winded rhetoric.

                      We’ve had the HOTTEST JANUARY on record, and you’re still in denial? Unbelievable.

                    • ALH84001 says:

                      “The CCC ( for example) is working on a figure of 50cm rise in 50 years and 1m in 100.( Interesting that their figure does not accelerate over the second 50 years.)
                      This is a huge increase over the stable figures over 116 years.

                      What hard evidence do they have to back up these figures?

                      None!”

                      Well, actually, yes, they do. According to this source (from Frank’s post, and which I looked at) – http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/environment/environmental-reporting-series/environmental-indicators/Home/Marine/coastal-sea-level-rise.aspx

                      You’d have building take place and then deal with flooding from rising sea levels and storm surges later??

                      Tell us; WHO WOULD PAY FOR THAT?

  8. Meanwhile, as Patrick and Pete quibble, the Met Office has announced today;


    MetService meteorologist Tom Adams…

    […]

    The summer has already broken a number of records for highest temperatures in some southern cities, and for the longest run of consecutive dry days.

    This month is on track to break the record for the warmest January in New Zealand history, said Mr Adams.

    ref: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/348835/summer-scorcher-weekend-is-the-real-heat-the-apex

    But the climate-shit will really hit the fan when the Russian Siberian frozen tundra begins to melt and releases methane into the air;

    Methane is of huge concern. It is more than 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and a massive release of methane in the Arctic could pose a significant threat to the global climate, driving worldwide temperatures even higher.

    ref: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/20/hell-breaks-loose-tundra-thaws-weatherwatch

    It may already be too late.

    • John W says:

      A Kiwi scientist Jim Kennet who grew up in Island bay, and a keen diver in his youth, gave new meaning to large depression in the ocean floor off Cook Strait
      .
      https://www.victoria.ac.nz/antarctic/about/events/s-t-lee-lecture/lecture-2004

      Methane bombs and evidence of them are now much better understood. The role they play in warming of the planet is accepted in the scientific community as being part of the rapid increase in warming found in past ages.

      Nothing new there but what is new it the observations and measurements of rapidly increasing methane stream from the Arctic ocean floor.

      This data and what it means has not been quantified so has not be included in the IPCC summary and forecast. We are not speculative so are not prepared.

    • Priss says:

      Frank, your debating on this issue has been exemplary. It’s a shame I can’t say the same for the two climate change deniers who have ducked questions, attacked you personally, and deflected all over the place.

      This is why climate change deniers can’t be taken seriously. When challenged, they become belligerent and resort to personal attack.

      A personal note for Patrick – you stuffed up big time by referring to Frank’s living arrangements. You got it so wrong. But as Frank said, it’s none of your goddamn business. All it shows is you had to resort to petty vindictiveness to try to close down the debate. Your a sad sad person Patrick.

      And meanwhile, we’re going throuigh the hottest decade in history. Something Patrick and Pete might realise if they took notice what’s going on around them.

      • John W says:

        Priss to notice what is around them may take more than what they are capable of in their present state of belief.

        They have bought into what makes them feel secure.

        The dark ages are full that sort of stuff. Humans come in many shapes, shades of thinking and beliefs. Relatively few can openly examine evidence without their beliefs giving strong bias and confusing their ability to apply logic. False arguments are an interesting study.
        Reductionism is a very common and misleading arena that many do not pick up on. Reductionist standpoints may be of interest but cannot be applied to a bigger picture. That is where they have find themselves, arguing away and talking basic nonsense.

        But they often notice spelling mistakes and other insignificant points which may irritate them.